choose your weapon...

Movies (4) Photos. (47) Poetry (16) Quotations. (76) Words (15) Writings. (137)

Sunday, August 30, 2009

global warming LIES!

First, let’s remember for a minute here that carbon dioxide makes up .04% of the atmosphere. Yes, plants absorb it to make oxygen, humans and animals inhale that oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, we also create carbon dioxide from industry but all that is a small portion of what could possibly have any drastic affect on the overall temperature of Earth. All that happens on land. Our planet is (so conveniently) made of 75% water, most of which contains high amounts of a rock called limestone (also present in huge mountains all over the world) which is made up of calcium (from excess deposits in the ground) and carbon dioxide (absorbed from the air). The more Co2, the more limestone, and the water acts as a buffer between the two. Volcano smoke has been emitting crazy amounts of carbon dioxide for billions of years, but because they also happen to spit up lava, which happens to cool into igneous rock, which happens to contain calcium, which happens to .. yet again, combine with the carbon in the atmosphere to make… limestone. Our planet has a system that’s been balancing itself for longer then anything you can ever conceive. Humans been around for a tiny blink of geological time, and while it might be getting warmer, it’s not a disaster and it’s happening very very VERY VERY slowly. I know why it’s being pushed so hard by the media, and so I don’t give a shit if you’re already brainwashed into disagreeing. They’re trying to scare the public into doing the right thing. I suppose it’s working, and might even be necessary, but trust me, your kids, and grandkids, and grandkids grandkids are all safe from the over publicized, warped, twisted, media created death sentence that is global warming doom. I feel like the oil market must have something to do with it. Maybe so they charge people twice now. Once to buy it, and again to burn it. I don't have all the answers, and am not pretending to, but I know enough to confidently proclaim that global warming is not a serious immediate threat. This is just the beginning to how arrogant I am about this subject.

*Additions: 99.999999% of ALL the carbon in the world, comes from limestone. The scientific equation is this: caco3 (limestone)+ 1/2 h20 (water) is equal to ca+(calcium) Hco3 +- 1/2o2 (oxygen)
then when it meets the surface of the air, Hco3 +-1/2o2 becomes equal to Co2 + h2o (carbon dixoide, plus water) or the other way around. - The more c02 in the air, the more Hco3 in the water, the more Caco3. co2 levels are kept in DIRECT balance by the solubility equation of limestone. Argue THAT motherfuckers.


LupineLooPine said...

I don't understand the end of the world thing either. All that certain models (quite fudged up models) of global warming speak of is a change .. in climate. So savannas become deserts and vice versa and all that jazz of shrinking coastlines. Of course these models that predict this on the basis of numerous averaged out iterations aren't so successful in explaining too many things in the past... for reasons I am neither aware of, (and thus) nor understand.. but that is irrelevant in terms of its predictability in the next 40-50 years. The point of course is that this is going to , if true, make a lot of animals extinct and control our population... which has happened many times in our geological past anyway, and at this point, I've really gotten over it. As a teen I felt bad that we humans eliminate so many creatures (and continue to do so to a ridiculous degree and at an even more ridiculous rate). But when seen in the bigger perspective, both ,of the timescale of all the biological forms that have lived through varying and alternating geological periods through the ages, as well as human nature as being an internal aspect of this equation that needs to be considered as opposed to some external thing we can magically wish to go away after millions of years without any concrete and continuous transformation of our species as a species.. when both these points are considered, it's not so unusual to me anymore. It's ok in a sense that it's beyond our control (which can be taken in an alternate sense as I'll elaborate later).

While I find your arrogance charming in nearly all cases, I didn't too much in this case... especially when that arrogance deals not with a proclamation of likelihood, but one of certainty. I mean, I doubt few people beyond a very few climatologists have all the information to have an informed opinion (and thus have some right to being arrogant of their certainties), but that still makes saying "I know this will be so, but I don't know" a fundamentally wrong thing to say. Intuition is a whole other matter, that even the highly informed should be careful of exercising in such a complex subject. Which is why this statement by you disturbed me a bit more than anything else : "Anyone who blindly listens to endless streams of global warming alarmism, needs only to take a look at the carbon cycle of this beautiful planet."

One needs ONLY look at the carbon cycle? That is the crux... the reduction of this global change? No. In any situation where the factors are so large and varied, one needs only look at the empirical evidence. One then has to think a lot to come up with a system that takes all concerned phenomena into consideration that one can hope will be the system that Nature uses. This is a situation where Nature tells us what's going on the basis of a variety of processes working together, not we who tell her on the basis of a single process, a tiny sliver of information that is inadequately used as an argument. There are two pieces of observable evidence: the melting of the polar ice caps and the increase in greenhouse gases. The two have been correlated together, and it is here that people can start to have itchy anus syndrome, not at whether or not there is a heating phenomenon and that the ice caps are melting. Those two are empirical facts.. whose consequences in terms of models can also be debated (though the idea that there will be NO change is just false... without there being a drastic reversal in the present heating... which we can only say as going to or not going to happen AFTER we have an understanding of the underlying complex phenomena).

LupineLooPine said...

Part 2:

The empirical facts are subject to a lot of factors, hence me saying earlier that they're complex. First the wide sources from Sun spot cycles, ozone layer depletion, and the changing climate itself affecting climate.... it get's very tricky and well beyond the carbon cycle. It's the present Solar spot cycle "issue" that can cause a slight cooling, and it is this understanding that is essential.... else an idiot could just say "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah , nyah... the Earth is cooling". Of course, when prodded to explain, the idiot has no answers, since the idiot has not reasoned anything out. I'm definitely not talking about you Miss P, but there are some so woefully uninformed who have debated me in topics, including non other than physics, that have left a frightful impression of the nature of the human race on me... considering this "idiot" is a person who is without question my intellectual superior. Yes, I find innovative ways to insult myself.

Back to the topic. So there are factors external to the carbon cycle that could lead to global temperature rise and melting polar ice caps. The carbon cycle you spoke of tells us nothing as to the way in which it does increase the Earth's temperature... the underlying function. If I put 5000 cows in a field, suck x amount of carbon from such and such place, etc... what will be the effect on temperature?... what will be the retardation of the melting of the polar ice caps? It is the inability to answer these questions definitely that can make some people question causation, i.e whether the increase in greenhouse gases , undoubtedly due to man (well, largely due to cows raised for man) is the predominant reason for the observed increase in the Earth's temperature. So ALL of this must be considered before one can state in the affirmative or the negative, not just citing a single aspect of the carbon cycle and saying that's only it. It's all about limestone (which by the way, if I'm not mistaken, also gives out CO2 on heating... am I right? DaddyPacman, can you tell me if I got my facts straight. Well, it should be.. since it's the reverse chemical operation ;) . I'm just playing).

The fact that loonies and alarmists exist does not discount the equally valid fact that the Earth is heating up. Whether it's part of a natural geological cycle, I guess, is debatable. I do concede as well that I am not sufficiently informed enough to have such a debate, and further, that if global warming is either due or not due to man, my actions if taken to the extreme will in no way alter the trajectory of the Earth's climate. If it is Nature, or mankind on a whole... it's too much for me to handle. In fact, by just existing, breathing and farting, I am a detriment to any solution. My thoughts and actions are thus redundant relative to this phenomena, hence my general lack of interest since 2006 till recently, and now the once again established lack of interest.

Oh, and by the way... one thing is certain. Man CAN in a very, very, VERY short period of time affect the climate. The climate has been and always will be affected by small changes.. maybe not the flapping of the wings of a butterfly, but perhaps something more significant. The argument that it sounds ridiculous is one that has weight solely on account of the ignorance of the bigger picture.

Meh,I think I've typed enough.

Way to hook me in you clever, CLEVER minx. I wanted to discuss a philosophical idea I had earlier today with you, that seems too big for me to resolve. It was kind of new, and is totally vague. Since your mind breaks things down in a way that I think is necessary for solving most problems, and since you're pretty much the only person on the net I know who does that (and that too well).. I thought you could have helped me out in resolving it. Anyway, I'll manage it in my daydreams during the week.

Take care Paco.

anton "hey, who turned the heat up?" chigurh said...

the polar caps just called...they want their ice back

Heather Maria said...

Alright Lupine, I'll bite, and charm your pants off with my arrogance.

I am proclaiming this opinion of mine as truth because of the ridiculous way the world has proclaimed global warming alarmism as truth. A huge amount of the civilized world believes whole-heartedly in what the “scientists” have been telling them. So much that it is, in their minds, seen as fact, whether they are a PhD geo, or a fuckin banker. Its gone so far that the common man, who has NO personal knowledge on the subject whatsoever, will blindly argue with anyone who disagrees with any aspect.

I don’t have any more proof against the catastrophe, then the world does FOR the catastrophe, but if they can say it with such conviction, then I can too. My dads a geo, if that helps you out at all, and most of what I have written here comes, not only from him, but many other geologists – all of who collectively agree it’s not a disaster – all of who have spent their lives studying our planet. All of who are ex patriots, unslaved by their governments, and with no reason to make shit up to suit their own purposes.

Call me crazy, but I’m a little more inclined to believe the people that make their millions off the planet itself (and not the PEOPLE on the planet) then I am to belief some lipstick troll talking to me from a tv screen.

"I know this will be so, but I don't know.” Fundamentally wrong?… Sure. But so is everything the world preaches in support of global warming. You yourself say that the heating phenomenon is an “empirical fact” then again an “equally valid fact that the Earth is heating up” but slow down buddy, It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the entire earth, as it fluctuates rapidly from place to place, has countless underlying factors to do with humidity, sunlight, location, fauna, animals, industrialization. ALL supporting “evidence” of warming comes from recent measurements taken in very select cities all over the world. Cities with buildings, and people, and concrete, and cars. Perhaps some parts of the world are getting warmer, but there are also unexplained cooling zones found all over the world too, not to mention the unrecorded surface temp of the oceans, which I feel needs to mentioned again. Is ¾ of our world.

Heather Maria said...

Pretend we’re on mythbusters for a second, and we take a glass container, put limestone in the bottom, fill halfway with water, then add double the amount of carbon dioxide to the air above the water, seal it, and leave it.

It’s a mathematic, scientific equation. Unarguable. If calcium is in excess, the c02 level will go back exactly to equilibrium, carbon absorbed into the limestone, with zero affect on temperature. That’s after it’s been doubled! But the world’s worried about tiny rises causing massive floods and vegetation.

Man can create climate change of course, but NOT worldwide, unless I suppose we decided to nuke the shit out of ourselves. The bigger picture is so much bigger then human influence. There have been ice ages, and huge rises in volcanic activity all throughout our earth’s history, we get here for a couple thousand years and are so cocky to think we’re already upsetting the balance of the earth. Our planet isn’t here for us, we’re here for our planet, and if it couldn’t deal with a bit more greenhouse gas, then we would all have been screwed a long time ago.

I’ve also typed enough now.

Lub you Loopy!

Heather Maria said...

hmm.. vegetation problems* (? maybe.. not sure what I was goin for there)

Michael said...

Leaving aside all the more alarmist ideas about Global Warming, most of which are obviously ridiculous, I guess the main problem with the current situation is that carbon dioxide levels and temperatures are rising much faster than has usually been the case. Sure, it will all dissolve into the ocean and form limestone eventually, but that is a slow process. The fear that the reasonable scientists have is how much temperatures might rise before the new equilibrium is reached, and how ecosystems will be able to shift from one location to another, as they did in previous warming periods, with all the human-altered habitat in the way.

But you are right to take a stand against the most alarmist fears. The simple fact is that even in the worst-case scenarios, temperatures won't rise higher than they've been during many earlier periods in Earth's history, and the majority of life will survive. But even a few extinctions are unacceptable to a lot of people. (Don't know how they expect to stop them all.)

I wonder sometimes if many people like to believe in the most alarmist environmental panics because it makes humans seem even more powerfull. The idea that the tiniest actions we take might have dire consequences for the entire biosphere is a huge ego-boost.

Heather Maria said...

Well, have no fear Michael. temperatures are not rising because of co2 content, temperatures are rising naturally, because our planet as cooling and heating periods (and has forever).. which creates more co2. carbon dixoide is a result of temp change, temp change isnt a result of carbon dioxide.

Michael said...

You're right that higher temperatures can lead to more carbon dioxide. It works both ways. Postive feedback. There's also negative feedback, such as higher temperatures leading to more cloud cover and thus lower temperatures. That's why it's so hard to trust anybody's projections.

Have you ever heard of the theory that the Greenland (and possibly the Antartic) ice cap has taken this long to absorb the extra heat since the end of the last Ice Age, and would thus be melting at its new faster rate no matter what the current climate situation might be? It's a minority view, but it does put a different perspective on things. Some of these Climatic trends are sloooow!
Then there's the idea that the spread of agriculture in the Middle Ages and later reversed the Little Ice Age and kept it from becoming a real ice age. Human activity may've prevented disatrous climate change.

I'm always stunned when you directly respond to one of my comments. Wow. Thank you.

noel said...

As i'd have to agree with you Heather..very true...its amazing what propaganda the sheep will swallow when its fed to them without questioning it....another thing,since an early age i've always thought the earth will go through its inevitable cyles anyway regardless of mankind..i.e-ice,stone,iron,jurassic,trassic,cretacious ages etc, and so on..we are but a grain of sand on a very large beach in the history of the earth and cosmos..having said that..lets all enjoy life and have a beer or 3

LupineLooPine said...

Your Dad's equation popped into my head when I was at the Uni yesterday. Turns out the coffee kicked in a bit slow. In any case, the solution hit me. Solution to what you might ask? Well, to the contradiction (or the apparent one) present in saying a small amount of limestone can solve the co2 issue, yet there being a co2 issue. Something was off. The answer has to be either that the forward reaction and the backward reaction cancel each other out, i.e the amount of co2 absorbed by the oceans through it's limestone would cancel out the amount of co2 produced by processing calcium oxide (by man or the sun), OR that in the large scale the equation acquired in the lab is not observed to that extent due to it being unfavourable. Though, you mentioned the equation is favourable at all temperatures, so that can't be it. The net equation has somehow got to be that more co2 is produced than is absorbed, in order to account for the increasing yearly average c02 levels. I don't know if the increasing heating is releasing the co2, for the temperatures required to get this should be fairly high to take it from the equilibrium position (it should be, but you can check that with DaddyP)

There are many more reactions to consider than what your Dad showed you. Quite a lot of redox and acid base reactions exist with the same co2 sapping qualities, and thus there should be no increase in the co2 per se, if we just consider these. The more I thought about it, the more bothered I became at the ease of acceptability of the "heating causing the increase in co2" theory. For one thing, it leaves a gaping hole in explaining where the heating came from. It secondly ignores the cyclical relation that will take place as the co2 values do increase. The increased levels of co2 must be doing something. If the average heating increases by a constant amount relative to the amount of co2, that would produce problems to this theory. All this should have occured to me yesterday, since this is my "thing"... but I guess sleep or coffee were required, and since yesterday, I've fortunately had both.

I'm not fully sure by reason alone as to how the average co2 values and average temperature values, do ,in their temperature fluctuations on a daily scale, work together in this cyclical way. I can understand a scientist trying to find a way of explaining the heating by looking at the process he or she knows causes it, i.e the greenhouse effect. For me personally though, I need to see a relation, a demonstration of x amount of co2 producing y amount of heat by trapping heat... or for any other phenomenon really. It could exist, and it just could be that I am ignorant of it. But really, if anything is a crux.. THAT would be it. The problem I think is that what can be calculated is the amount of energy transferred to the neighbouring molecules (neighbouring the greenhouse gases), which will vary with the concentration of the other gases and the time of day.

I guess it's worth noting again that this topic is far too complicated to study on the basis of individual processes ab initio. It makes more sense to have the empirical data and go backwards. Such must be the method implemented in other complex systems like biological processes and quantum field theory :\

Drag said...

Global warming huh... heard it from all over lately, thing is we are grasping the subject from the wrong side. Greenies say "we are destroying our planet" I say that's bullshit, even if global warming is going to happen, even if co2 has to do with it and, even if ice caps are going to melt; which I have no clue wether the points put forth by media are true cause I done no study which would prove such claims, only thing it would do is threat few species on earth. Global warming ? If it's occuring I say it's a natural cycle, why would we want to prevent natural flow /not that we never had... we are rather known of disturbing nature order, and no i'm not some green nut just stating facts/ so if it's ongoing cycle some species would be swept away, some new would emerge that's how this planet rolls, we should deal with it. As for why so many interest groups are pushing for limiting emmision of greenhouse gasses, easy. They want to tax them. Just my lil opinion into the pile.
Silly question: Co2 is causing climat warming ... maybe it's other way around, maybe warming is causing increased emittion of co2 :p

Sorry for any possible language errors ...not that I speak it on a daily basis.pshh.

Drag said...

I only just now have read the comments on here, and have to say one thing. Maaan I love your mind and the way you are thinking. Such open mindness I am seeking in human beings !

if you happen to be a billionaire...